Bring on the SSSCA!

Bring on the SSSCA! Why? Because I want to kick some serious
intellectual
property Law Butt! I have nothing against the concept of intellectual
property. I believe it is also valid now, in the information age.
However, I
do believe that IP Law is objectively tilted towards the wrong side, and
I
wish to change the fact. And legislation of the SSSCA (or CBDPTA as it
is now
called)[1] is the perfect vehicle to make it gain
momentum.

I will not describe it in detail here, as many sources described it
better
than me. I refer you to the
Linux Weekly News review, or
their news section
which
contains links to other editorials. Basically, what the
SSSCA says is that all digital devices and computer software must
implement mandatory provisions for copyright protection. Breaking
those provisions, or not implementing them in the first place,
could result in an indictment under civil or even criminal law.

Let's imagine a world in which the SSSCA has been passed (in the U.S.
alone
for the time), and it has taken effect. What would happen? Here's my
predictions based on the commonplace interpretation of the law:

Most existing software and hardware systems becoming illegal.
Literally.
This includes open-source and commercial software. Windows XP,
Microsoft's
latest operating system lets people hear "pirated" mp3s, or doesn't it?
Then, obviously it has to go.

( A correspondent of mine implied that they will only become
"grandfathered"
and still can be used without restrictions. But releasing new versions
of
them would be impossible. As time does not stand still, and new software
has to accommodate for the changes, it will eventually have the same
effect.)

Hardware and software vendors will need to invest a lot of money in
building
copyright protection into their products.

Someone will have to finance this development, and later on converting
the
legacy systems into the SSSCA-sound devices.

This someone is the U.S. Government. It is one of the foundation of the
democratic process that the government must finance the actions that
needed to be taken to implement a given act. Software vendors cannot
implement
the SSSCA's provisions for free, so they will demand the U.S. government
finances them.

I'm not really good at approximating things like that, but I think this
amount of money can easily surpass the current U.S. Budget. And I mean
the
entire budget, defense budget and all.

Assuming they are forced to switch, then people will have to put up with
computers, that are not quite those that they were used to. Not only
that
Moore's Law will be temporarily reversed, but those systems will not put
up
with many actions that are considered mundane and day-to-day now. Even
such
that are perfectly sound copyright-wise.

This will make everybody unhappy and they demand the law to be changed.

Most programmers or text-book writers I am familiar with cannot comply
with the SSSCA's terms. It was proven that it is cryptologically
impossible
to create a non-breakable copyright protection scheme[2]. Trying to mess
their code with an ad-hoc heuristic imposed by the government is not
their
idea of being productive.

The result: a massive brain drain of engineers from the U.S. If you
think
that because of the recession there is a surplus of programmers, think
again.
There is still a genuine lack of _good_ and qualified ones.[3] And those are
the exact ones which would prefer to abandon the U.S. in favour of a
country
which gives them more freedom to program.[4]

Do you think that a different outcome can happen? It is possible that
the
SSSCA will exist on paper but won't be enforced until someone is
reported
to commit a crime against it. But obviously the Free Software
Foundations
can sue Microsoft for manufacturing an operating system that violates
its
intellectual property. After all, I can use Notepad to remove the
copyright
notice off one of gcc's files. Which is a clear violation even of
existing
copyright law.

When the SSSCA was first heard of (in its previous incarnation) some
people
thought that Microsoft would be happy to see it because it will render
most
existing free software illegal. But even Microsoft cannot to put up with
the terms of the SSSCA. Microsoft would rather be a company whose
products are possibly threatened by Linux, than a monopoly which will
manufacture a practically useless operating system that could only
exist in Sen. Ernest Hollings' imagination.

Obviously #7 will probably happen a long time before the law takes into
effect.
And I think it is a good thing, because then:

Everybody will take about intellectual property laws and their
implication on computers.

Hackers who strive for political freedom will become media icons.
Remember when Linus Torvalds appeared on the cover of Forbes?
Now think of Richard M. Stallman on the cover of Time magazine.[5]

People will become interested in other IP laws that violate their
individual rights. Acts such as the DMCA, or the UCITA, or the
restrictions on encryption or previous copyright legislation that is
bluntly illegal (objectively speaking) may actually become headline
news.

Which means: more publicity for us! And a greater chance of getting
something
to move there.

Don't get me wrong, I don't encourage the U.S. legislation to make the
SSSCA
into law. But I think it may actually serve as a turning point for those
who
strive for digital freedom of expression. We should criticize it
rationally
as much and as hardly as we can, but even if it passes it won't be the
end of
the world, but rather the beginning of a wonderful era.

The other possibility would be that Sen. Hollings et. al will decide to
pass
the SSSCA incrementally by one irrational provision at a time. But I
believe this will only make the process slower, but the final outcome
inevitable as it is. Many people who download mp3s illegally would agree
that
it is the right thing not to do it. But they would much more think that
they should be given a choice whether to do it or not.

I have one piece of advice to Sen. Hollings, Disney's CEO, Michael
Eisner and all the other people who have expressed support of the SSSCA.
Learn
how to program. This is not only enlightening and mind-exercising, but
also
a very practical skill. After you have learned how to program, I want
you to
make your code or commonly used code SSSCA-friendly.

I'd like you to take the Meta-Circular Evaluator of the classic text
"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and make sure it
does not execute copyrighted code. I'd like you to take GNU echo and
make
sure it does not prints copyrighted expressions to the screen. (you may
actually find it useful to start from agrep). I want you to take gcc
and make sure it does not compile code that one does not own the
copyright
to. And I want you to make sure your own pet programs and script follow
suit.

Then I want you to let me know how you felt doing that. I know I would
feel that it would be a complete waste of time if my own
Freecell
Solver
had to make sure it respects the copyrights of layouts it receives
as input. Worse yet, I may have to make sure it does not inspect such
boards at mid-run. FYI, Freecell Solver can scale to millions of
boards (which are all valid Freecell states) during a mundane run, and
I have to make sure I check each one.

If I had to comply with the SSSCA, I would rather be jailed before I
implement
such a disaster in it. (seriously) If the U.S. Government would
sacrifice the
well-being of thousands of engineers and millions of users just so Walt
Disney
Corp. would be happy, then I'd rather get rid of the U.S. Government,
(Disney
is actually a relatively benevolent and productive corporation as far as
I can
tell), than the American or world-wide public.

So, fire away I say to Sen. Hollings. Unless, of course, he actually
want to remain in one piece afterwards.

Seriously now, I'd rather see the public start opposing the SSSCA before
it
is enacted as law. How do we do it? By lobbying. Is there anything wrong
with
lobbying? Not unless there's anything wrong with talking. Here's a
related
example: suppose you wrote a good screenplay and wish it to be
materialized
as a movie. You can either send it to the Disney/WB/Paramount/etc. box
and
wait for a reply, which you probably won't get.

Or: you can travel to Hollywood, try to talk with other people who hold
some power in the studios, tell them about your story; ask them to read
it or your favourite parts; improve what they don't like and gradually
think of ways to improve it; gradually have more people know about the
story and eventually have the higher people notice you. This way will
probably work better than just sending it by mail or E-mail and hoping
for the
best. Likewise for politics.

We should get as many people as possible that can be concerned by the
SSSCA
to know about it, and criticize it at public. Furthermore, those people
should
propagate it further up the line. I.e: we should let Military engineers
be
aware of it, and let them tell their commander about it. If a commander
hears
about the SSSCA from 3 different engineers, he will become suspicious of
it
himself. If you actually know a general or an ex-general (or admiral,
yeah
yeah) tell him about it, and see what he makes from it. Now, substitute
this
paragraph with the Tech Firms (not necessarily info tech), or Police, or
Local Municipalities or generally equivalent.

Like it or not, we have become dependent on computers. And like it or
not,
the SSSCA will make using and developing them impossible. So, let the
people
know, so legislators will notice[6] and we can get rid of this crap.

And like I said earlier, it will give us a higher ground to further
elevate
our fight for individual rights. I cannot force you to contribute to its
success ("Defame the SSSCA today!" and all this crap) but it does sound
realistic to me. Still, don't rely on others to do the job for you.
Remember: we are not centralized but distributed. Every node is
important.
You can start by writing an article about it while expressing your
opinion
rationally and benevolently. Then, publish it somewhere appropriate.

Life awaits you!

-------------------

[1] - I'm not calling the SSSCA, in its new name,
because it has a very
horrid acronym. And it is basically the same law.

[2] - If you think about it, you can quickly realize
that it also "makes
sense". Naturally, it is not a proof, but should be convincing enough.

[3] - I used to worry about not getting a job after I
finish the Technion,
too. However, I was told that experienced Linux developers (which is the
case for me) are actually very hard to find in Israel. In fact, many
qualified
Windows programmers are hired only to force Linux down their throats.

[4] - The U.S. may pride itself on being a free country.
But becoming liberal
and maintaining liberalism is a process, not a declaration. While no
country
in the world today is perfect constitutionally, I believe there are many
countries in which a person can lead a free-er life than the U.S.

[5] - I'm not very fond of the latter. But he is one of
the most influential
and opinionated people in the free software/open-source world, so I
chose
to give him as an example.

[6] - Sending mail to your representative does not work
as expected because
of the following reasons:

1. Representatives receive a lot of mail and E-mail containing many
things
starting from conspiracy theories to personal complaints (which may be
legitimate). It is probably that they will not notice the SSSCA.\

2. It is possible that they have bad intentions and wish to pass the
SSSCA.
Evil people exist, and I believe most representatives fall into that
category.

3. A representative is likely to be more influenced by people he knows
personally than from some random L. Torvalds hacker. We are dealing with
people here, not with Turing machines.

Wow! you really feel strong about this. But i have only one minute to
spend at this second. Had raph charge fees for posting, it might force
you to finish your argument within 3 minutes which may not be just for
you but it works better for a diverse audience each tending their own
interest first. Law is to defend an order and so are economic measures.
To change a rule of law, you have to ask yourself, is everyone
ready for it or why the law was there in the first place?

(1) LIMITATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- In
achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works
as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the
encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive

rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine.

(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that
uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from
making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the
time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or
non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel,
by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122 (j)(5)(A)
of title 17, United States Code), a cables system (as defined in section
111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section
119(d)(6) of such title).

Is the fuss about anything more than paranoid pirates who might not be
able to get their daily dose of mp3s? Isn't this just an extension of
whatever law makes blackboxes for TV illegal? I don't believe you are
allowed to modify copyright analog content, so why the fuss about
digital? Not that this will be successful in any way, of course.
Anti-piracy measures have been broken ever since they were in use. Same
with encoded TV signals via blackboxes. Everything illegal will
continue to remain illegal, just slightly harder to obtain/modify/etc.
Everything legal will continue to remain legal. Or am I missing
something...?

While I agree with you that the SSSCA has the potential to rough up the whole hardware and
software industry, I would hesitate to say that this will benefit free software. There will
be a two-year period when all existing software and hardware has to be re-designed. Some
vendors will do a better job and gain market share. Some will have trouble and disappear.
Part of the problem is that products sold before the SSSCA will be cheaper and
have more capabilities. So people will buy A LOT of new hardware in the months before, and
then won't buy anything for a long time. This could be very bad for many hardware
vendors....

Similar things will happen to free software, especially if the standard requires many
modifications of existing software and not only new drivers for DRM-capable hardware. The
first hurdle is that the standard may have obstacles like patents, or maybe it requires a
non-free codebase. You would have to release new revisions of licenses like the GPL in
order to use the SSSCA-mandated standard and keep the use of free software legal in the US.
And even then every user may have to pay for the use of the SSSCA standard under RAND
terms. If people refuse to re-license their code to include non-free DRM code you won't be
able to use it. Another problem is that people outside of the US may not be willing to help
rewriting their code to include DRM, or, if they maintain it, they could refuse to include
it in their codebase. Many forks could be the result.

One effect of the SSSCA that I am convinced of is that people will learn to appreciate free
media alternatives. As an example, a teacher who wants to print/copy a newspaper article
for his pupils can easily do this at the moment. But if the article is DRM-protected he
won't
be able to do this anymore, at least not without paying additional money. Experiences like
this
should increase the number of people who use and maybe contribute to things like Nupedia.

If the SSSCA contained a provision which required all modified hardware
to allow the user to select only Internet content which was in the
public domain, it might actually have an interesting effect on
content. It'd be refreshing to see people depend on courtesy and
technology to determine usage rather than government enforcement. The
big problem with using copyrights to enforce software
licenses is that the third party in the transaction, a government, is
usually subornable.

Clearly, though, it'd be better for all of us at this point, inside and
outside of the US, if the act simply never passes.

This seemed worthy of a quick reply; mostly a note regarding the US
political system. The original poster said:

"This someone is the U.S. Government. It is one of the foundation of
the democratic process that the government must finance the actions
that needed to be taken to implement a given act. Software vendors
cannot implement the SSSCA's provisions for free, so they will demand
the U.S. government finances them."

Two things: The Federal Government of the United States is not a
democracy. It is a republic. The difference is significant, and as
you say, explained more effectively elsewhere. The different is
germaine to your remark so it's worth mentioning. Also, it is not one
of the foundations of our process "that the government must finance the
actions taken to implement a given act." Our government frequently
passes laws for which it provides no supporting funding; it is one
of my favorite checks and balances. The senate does not allocate funds
and so does not have unilateral power to pass and fund laws; the house
must provide funding.

Thanks for your time and the worthy rant, your main point is still of
interest. There may well be some cost involved for the software
industry in realizing the goals of this bill. I suspect it will reveal
itself most aggressively in the form of vague and nagging lawsuits
directed by content-makers (Hollywood, RIAA, etc.) at software
developers. Alas.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser
code is live. It needs further work but already handles most
markup better than the original parser.